Bosselman v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 14 December 1909 |
| Docket Number | 30. |
| Citation | 174 F. 622 |
| Parties | BOSSELMAN v. RICHARDSON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Rudolph Marks (Louis C. Raegener, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Philip J. McCook (Anson T. McCook and Hans von Briesen, of counsel) for defendant in error.
Before COXE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in the court below recovered a verdict of $20,000 against the defendant under section 4965, Rev. St. U.S. (U.S Comp. St. 1901, p. 3414), being a penalty of $10,000 for the sale of over 1,000 postal cards reproducing each of two pictures painted by the plaintiff's father in 1875 describing the burning of the Norfolk Navy Yard and the ramming of the 'Cumberland' by the 'Virginia' in 1862, assigned to the plaintiff in 1905, and by him copyrighted in 1906. A great many exceptions were taken at the trial, which have been argued in this court, only two of which we think it necessary to consider, viz., that the complaint should have been dismissed on the ground, first, that there was no proof that Richardson, Sr., was the author of the pictures; second, that there was no proof that he had not published them before copyright. Upon this latter point the trial judge held that the burden lay upon the defendant to prove publication before copyright, and not upon the plaintiff to prove nonpublication.
Rev. St. U.S. Sec. 4952 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3406), provides that the 'author' of a painting or his assigns, upon complying with the provisions of law, shall have the sole liberty of printing, publishing, copying, and vending the same. Section 4956 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3407) requires the person entitled to the copyright of a painting 'on or before the day of publication in this or any foreign country' to deliver a description and a photograph of it to the Librarian of Congress. The plaintiff rightly and necessarily averred in his complaint that Richardson, Sr., was the author of the paintings, that he assigned them to the plaintiff with full power to copyright, and that the plaintiff did before the publication of them anywhere comply with the provisions of law regulating copyrights. The answer denied all these allegations.
The certificate of the Librarian of Congress under section 4957 Rev. St. U.S. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3409), after acknowledging that descriptions and photographs of the paintings have been deposited by the plaintiff in his office, concludes with the words, 'the right whereof he claims as proprietor in conformity with the laws of the United States respecting copyrights. ' Such a certificate is wholly unlike letters patent, which are issued under section 4884 after a quasi judicial examination of the applicant's rights, and which grant him, his heirs or assigns, the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention patented. A patentee accordingly makes out a prima facie case when he puts his letters in evidence and proves infringement. The owner of a copyright, on the other hand, is bound to prove compliance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fred Fisher, Inc., v. Dillingham
... ... 9576) makes such a ... certificate, in fact offered in evidence, prima facie proof, ... among other things, of the name of the author. Bosselman ... v. Richardson, 174 F. 622, 98 C.C.A. 127 (C.C.A. 2), is ... made obsolete by this section. Indeed, Chief Justice Taney ... under the old act ... ...
-
Danks v. Gordon
... ... show how he became proprietor and why he has the right to ... bring the action. Crown Feature Film Co. v. Levy, ... 202 F. (D.C.) 805; Bosselman v. Richardson, 174 F ... 622, 98 C.C.A. 127. The bill in the case under consideration ... states that at the time of his death Hart P. Danks, the ... ...
-
M. Witmark & Sons v. Calloway
...copyright in the plaintiff. Berlin v. Evans (D. C.) 300 F. 677. The rule was different before the Copyright Act of 1909. Bosselman v. Richardson (C. C. A.) 174 F. 622; Lederer v. Saake (C. C.) 166 F. 810. The plaintiff, being the proprietor of the copyright, had "the exclusive right * * * (......
-
Quinn-Brown Pub. Corporation v. Chilton Co.
...not merely by broad allegation of proprietorship, but by setting forth facts which indicate how he became proprietor. Bosselman v. Richardson, 174 F. 622 (C.C.A.2); Crown Feature Film Co. v. Levy, 202 F. 805 The point pressed is that the resolution passed by the directors of the Wire Associ......